3 ms·

I find that much more incoherent. It's absolutely possible to believe that things should be allowed without a moral component. I believe woodworking should be

I find that much more incoherent. It's absolutely possible to believe that things should be allowed without a moral component. I believe woodworking should be allowed. Not because it's "good" or "bad", but because people want to do it and there aren't sufficient harms to warrant trying to ban it. Some people feel the same about porn and sex work. It's something people want to do, they believe there aren't sufficient harms to warrant regulating it. Watching or performing in porn doesn't make someone better or worse, it's just a thing they do like how some people make canoes or birdhouses. Many people who use the word "good" to describe porn and sex work are describing it in the beneficial sense, not the moral sense.

User23 4y ago
> I find that much more incoherent. It's absolutely possible to believe that things should be allowed without a moral component. That’s a bit odd on account of claiming that something is morally neutral is clearly a moral assertion. That being said, can you imagine why perhaps sex might have greater moral significance than canoe-making? > Many people who use the word "good" to describe porn and sex work are describing it in the beneficial sense, not the moral sense. That’s fascinatingly novel. Can you explain the difference or at least distinction between a “moral” “good” and a “beneficial” “good?” Incidentally, talk of “beneficial” “good” makes me think of the classic Windows 2000 tagline: “New NT Technology.”
- everforward 4y ago
  > That’s a bit odd on account of claiming that something is morally neutral is clearly a moral assertion. Morally neutral and being without a moral component are different. Gravity lacks a moral component; it is neither good nor bad, it just exists. Moral neutrality contains opposing good and bad effects, with neither significantly outweighing the other. Killing someone in self-defense could be seen as morally neutral. Killing someone is bad, but saving people is good, causing a wash. Someone who kills another in self-defense isn't a bad person for doing so, but it also doesn't make them a better person. > That being said, can you imagine why perhaps sex might have greater moral significance than canoe-making? In the context of porn, genuinely not. Canoe-making seems like it has far greater moral significance. It's a practical skill and potentially a bonding experience with others. Porn is maybe a waste of time, but it's hardly alone there. It's like playing with a fidget spinner, which I don't find morally significant either. > That’s fascinatingly novel. Can you explain the difference or at least distinction between a “moral” “good” and a “beneficial” “good?” A beneficial good lacks a moral component, or is morally neutral as you would say. A scooter is a beneficial good; it allows people to get places faster, so they can do what they want. It's not morally good to own and use one, and it's not morally bad to not do so. Its merits are amoral. A moral good is something that has a clear moral component; feeding the homeless is morally good, not doing so is morally bad.

User23 4y ago

> I find that much more incoherent. It's absolutely possible to believe that things should be allowed without a moral component. That’s a bit odd on account of claiming that something is morally neutral is clearly a moral assertion. That being said, can you imagine why perhaps sex might have greater moral significance than canoe-making? > Many people who use the word "good" to describe porn and sex work are describing it in the beneficial sense, not the moral sense. That’s fascinatingly novel. Can you explain the difference or at least distinction between a “moral” “good” and a “beneficial” “good?” Incidentally, talk of “beneficial” “good” makes me think of the classic Windows 2000 tagline: “New NT Technology.”

everforward 4y ago
> That’s a bit odd on account of claiming that something is morally neutral is clearly a moral assertion. Morally neutral and being without a moral component are different. Gravity lacks a moral component; it is neither good nor bad, it just exists. Moral neutrality contains opposing good and bad effects, with neither significantly outweighing the other. Killing someone in self-defense could be seen as morally neutral. Killing someone is bad, but saving people is good, causing a wash. Someone who kills another in self-defense isn't a bad person for doing so, but it also doesn't make them a better person. > That being said, can you imagine why perhaps sex might have greater moral significance than canoe-making? In the context of porn, genuinely not. Canoe-making seems like it has far greater moral significance. It's a practical skill and potentially a bonding experience with others. Porn is maybe a waste of time, but it's hardly alone there. It's like playing with a fidget spinner, which I don't find morally significant either. > That’s fascinatingly novel. Can you explain the difference or at least distinction between a “moral” “good” and a “beneficial” “good?” A beneficial good lacks a moral component, or is morally neutral as you would say. A scooter is a beneficial good; it allows people to get places faster, so they can do what they want. It's not morally good to own and use one, and it's not morally bad to not do so. Its merits are amoral. A moral good is something that has a clear moral component; feeding the homeless is morally good, not doing so is morally bad.